Rajasthan High Court
Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Harlal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6494/2022
Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Harlal Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhuma Chhota, Police Station Laxmangarh,
District Sikar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Lichhman Son Of Hardeva, Resident Of Village Bhuma
Chhota, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj).
3. Sohani Devi Wife Of Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Bhuma
Chhota, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj).
4. Anandi D/o Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Bhuma Chhota,
Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj).
5. Sunita D/o Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Bhuma Chhota,
Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
25/07/2022
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the order of Revisional Court
passed in Criminal Revision (CIS No.) 20/2021 on 11.07.2022,
whereby, the Revisional Court set aside the order of learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Laxmangarh dated 13.09.2021 passed in
case No.8/2021, whereby, the land under proceeding under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. was attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and
Tehsildar, Laxmangarh was appointed as receiver of the land.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6494/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police
had reported that there is apprehension of breach of peace for
possession of land under proceeding. The report of the SHO is at
Annexure-2. Annexure-2 as well as the order passed by the
learned Sub Divisional Magistrate reveals that a civil suit for
partition of the property is already going on between the parties
before the Competent Revenue Court. During the pendency of the
aforesaid suit, one of the parties to the proceeding created a
situation of bloodshed and apprehension of breach of peace, which
was to be prevented by the preventive measures under Section
145 Cr.P.C.
Once the Magistrate was conscious that a suit for partition of
the property under proceeding was pending before the Competent
Revenue Court, the Magistrate was conscious that there is unity of
title and possession of the parties over the land under proceeding.
Hence, no one can be stopped from claiming his title and
possession over those lands. If there was apprehension of breach
of peace, the Magistrate could have opted for other preventive
proceedings such as under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and could not have
bent upon to decide the possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any infirmity with the
impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.
dated 06.04.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)
No.2237/2016.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case because here the admitted fact is that
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6494/2022]
there is unity of title and possession of the parties on the land
under proceeding.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as devoid of
merit.
Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Sunita/43
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
